Post navigation

Prev: (04/21/22) | Next: (04/22/22)

Workers at Starbucks Roastery second in Seattle — and on Capitol Hill — to unionize

The Starbucks Roastery on Melrose at the base of Capitol Hill is a $20 million coffee retail marvel. One of the most visited Starbucks stores in its home city is also now the second here to unionize. Meanwhile, a rally in Cal Anderson is being planned for Saturday to support the labor effort.

Thursday in a 38-27 vote, employees of the roastery voted to certify unionization through the National Labor Relations Board. There are more than 100 eligible employees at the store.

The tally makes the roastery the second Starbucks in its home city — and on Capitol Hill — to unionize amid a wave of labor activity across the country targeting the coffee giant.

In March, CHS reported on the first crew to approve unionization in Seattle at the Broadway and Denny shop across from Capitol Hill Station.

CHS talked with workers from the Broadway shop about the organizing efforts here in January. The Starbucks votes are part of growing efforts to organize labor at some of the largest companies in the nation that experts say align with the pandemic, record job openings, and rising expectations for better pay and working conditions.

Like the Denny and Broadway workers, the roastery employees will now be represented by Starbucks Workers United, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union, and will collectively bargain over pay and working conditions as they begin what could be a long process of working out a new contract with the company. The workers will also now be subject to union dues.

Smaller entities are also part of the changing mood around labor including the Broadway location of second hand clothing chain Crossroads Trading where workers have also approved union representation. Around Capitol Hill, unionization and labor organizing efforts have included other smaller employers. In 2020, CHS reported on the unionization of workers at Capitol Hill’s Elliott Bay Book Company. In 2021, workers at Central District pot shop Ponder became the latest to organize in a spreading movement to unionize the state’s cannabis industry.

Critics of Starbucks claim the company is engaging in attempts to thwart the labor organizing efforts through disinformation, workplace discipline, and retaliatory scheduling. The have been ten unfair labor practice complaints filed with the labor board involving Seattle Starbucks stores since the start of 2022.

District 3 representative Kshama Sawant has been a vocal proponent of the Starbucks labor fight, helping lead the City Council to pass a resolution to back the efforts and organizing a rally against “union busting” efforts from Starbucks scheduled for Saturday in Cal Anderson Park.

 

PLEASE HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE!
Subscribe to CHS to help us pay writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for as little as $5 a month.

 

 

 

Subscribe and support CHS Contributors -- $1/$5/$10 per month

25 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Questijns
Questijns
1 year ago

Would love an account of what the workers want in a contract specifically. From the outside, Starbucks seems like they try harder than other fast food places (which is what they are now, they’ve moved far beyond coffee) in terms of taking care of their workers.

Fairly Obvious
Fairly Obvious
1 year ago
Reply to  Questijns

They want livable wages from a corporation that makes windfall profits.

The problem is that minimum wage is not a livable wage. Minimum wage for a 40 hour week should provide someone with the means to live near their place of employment. The problem is, it doesn’t, even with the increase to $15/hr. Fun fact, $15/hr is the American median poverty level. In King County, it’s actually near $35/hr.

Starbucks pays above minimum wage, that is true. They start at $17 and go to $23. But they’re still paying unlivable wages. To say paying just above minimum wage, but still resulting in poverty wages, should prevent people from unionizing is a head-scratcher.

The next generation is realizing that their grand and great-grandparents were most successful when they collectively bargained rather than negotiating it along. Their parents and grandparents, riding on the successes of their parents, allowed that institution to be torn down and the earth salted because they didn’t think they needed unions anymore. Their children see the crap situation they now face and realize they can do something about it.

The question is do these very wealthy corporations attempt some neo-strike busting, repeating the barons’ mistakes 100 years ago?

Something to think about
Something to think about
1 year ago
Reply to  Fairly Obvious

Do they think they’re going to get $35/hr. PCC is unionized and they start at $17.50.

C_Kathes
C_Kathes
1 year ago

$35 an hour? Probably not, and I don’t think anyone expects that. $25? With a union, possibly. (Starbucks is vastly more profitable and resourced than PCC; comparing the two is absurd.) $25 without a union? Extremely unlikely. Typically in large corporations, non-managerial employees can’t even speak with someone who has the authority to boost their wages, much less ask that person for a raise and expect to receive it. Same goes for fringe benefits, safety improvements, adequate staffing, reliable scheduling, a well-defined job description, and much more besides wages. I would never want to work for a firm as big as Starbucks without a union. The power imbalance is just too great.

Glenn
Glenn
1 year ago
Reply to  Fairly Obvious

So should we start paying Starbucks coffee baristas $35 per hour to start? Food delivery people too? Subway sandwich builder? Uber? How much are we willing to pay for that coffee, that food delivery, that Subway sandwich, and that ride across town? And what is a windfall profit? I thought a windfall was a one time benefit from an unexpected (windfall) event. Is that how you define corporate profits today? Are we expecting that companies will just start making less money while their employees make more? This whole issue is tied to so many things.

Jones
Jones
1 year ago
Reply to  Glenn

Yes! Sounds good. CEOs don’t need it so why not?

MadCap
MadCap
1 year ago
Reply to  Jones

SERIOUSLY- What world are you living in?! You don’t by chance have a COEXIST bumper sticker on your car?

Fairly Obvious
Fairly Obvious
1 year ago
Reply to  Glenn

Are we expecting that companies will just start making less money while their employees make more?

McDonalds workers in Denmark make $22/hr to start and a Big Mac in Denmark actually costs less than it does in the US. Companies can absorb the cost. It turns out that increasing labor rates has a minimal impact on costs.

The BUT MUH $10 YUGE MACS crowd are just a bunch of gullible, useful idiots helping to suppress wages for their fellow Americans at the bequest of their corporate overlords. They’ve never seen a boot they’ll refuse to lick.

I thought a windfall was a one time benefit from an unexpected (windfall) event.

You’re correct on the definition, but let’s not detract that these corporations make hand over fist profits while suppressing the wages of their workers.

Thatguy
Thatguy
1 year ago
Reply to  Glenn

windfall in business terms is typically anything greater than company/wall street estimates (in the case suggested above, windfall profit)

Also in business terms, CEO’s / Publicly traded companies have a responsibility to shareholders and employees alike, with shareholders typically being a higher priority until the employee uproar/cause is so big that it hurts the brand (no more windfalls due to supposed mistreatment of employees).

So, with that said, if you have a 401k/investments in public companies, recognize that you are going to pay for wage increases in the short-term with both lower share prices and higher prices.

CD Resident
CD Resident
1 year ago
Reply to  Fairly Obvious

What will happen is this will accelerate automation. Why pay someone to make a coffee for you when you can use a robot? That person who used to make $17-$23 an hour will now have to find a new job. Take PCC for example, once the extra hazard pay went in they conveniently changed out the vast majority of check out stands for self check out.

CHAZ Neighbor
CHAZ Neighbor
1 year ago
Reply to  CD Resident

Isn’t this already in place with vending machines?

MadCap
MadCap
1 year ago
Reply to  CD Resident

VERY great point CD Resident! Not only will it accelerate automation it will ALSO accelerate DRONE-mation. Are we all ready for that sh*t show?! Believe you me, the absolute second Amazon can substitute delivery drivers with drones, they will!

Fairly Obvious
Fairly Obvious
1 year ago
Reply to  CD Resident

What will happen is this will accelerate automation.

That was said when we increased minimum wages to $15. Turns out automation is very expensive and in most cases, companies will just pay their workers more.

Automation will come as a result of natural human progress, not paying our workers more. Then we’ll start to seriously talk about UBI.

MadCap
MadCap
1 year ago
Reply to  Fairly Obvious

Can you please give us some refences on this, links etc.

DownWithIt
DownWithIt
1 year ago
Reply to  Fairly Obvious

Starbucks corporate net profit margin in 2021 was 14%. That’s not windfall profits…that money is used to continue to expand and innovate the business that then employs the workers.

I’m not sure minimum wage full-time jobs should “provide someone with the means to live near their place of employment”. What should Starbucks of Beverly Hills pay? If they raised the price of the coffee to compensate for $35/hr baristas, no one would buy coffee there. People who want to live in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in one of the most expensive cities in the country need to look higher than a minimum wage existence for themselves.

These jobs _used to be_ stepping stones up to real careers or second jobs for people who need extra cash, or first jobs for young people to learn what it’s like to work alongside coworkers, take direction from more senior folks, etc.. Now if you want to have a discussion about why young people can’t start those careers today, that’s more valid than “Starbucks should pay baristas enough for a 2br in a new luxury bldg on cap hill”.

Fairly Obvious
Fairly Obvious
1 year ago
Reply to  DownWithIt

I’m not sure minimum wage full-time jobs should “provide someone with the means to live near their place of employment”. What should Starbucks of Beverly Hills pay?

Enough to live near their place of employment, as I said in my original post. Obviously minimum wage can’t sustain every McDonalds worker living on Santa Monica Blvd, but they shouldn’t need to drive in from east LA County either.

If a business can’t afford to pay their workers a livable wage, it’s tough to justify that businesses existence.

Also don’t forget that a lot of these corporations are getting a form of corporate socialism where they pay their workers poverty wages and expect our countries social net to pick up the rest.

The executives and owners of these corporations are paying very little in taxes due to horrific tax policies over the past 5 to 6 decades, so the burden gets passed onto the middle and lower classes.

We’re all getting screwed, but yet there’s no shortage of gullible, useful idiots to defend this pseudo-dystopian economic model, even on this blog.

helloworld
helloworld
1 year ago
Reply to  DownWithIt

$35 an hour will barely afford you a 300-500 square foot studio in Seattle, fyi, or a 1br in suburbs if you want to drive into the city

MadCap
MadCap
1 year ago
Reply to  Fairly Obvious

I’m all for workers unionizing, but you do realize that doesn’t mean the CEO’s of these companies will all the sudden become benevolent and cut their/the company’s profits in order to pay workers higher wages/benefits right? No, these CEO’s will just pass these new expenses onto customers as service fees or higher costs of goods. WHICH I AM PERSONALLY FINE WITH, as I try to do this on my own by tipping well above the norm. I want workers to be paid fairly. But I don’t think many other people will be ok with that outcome as observed by all the concern and anxiety the current inflation situation has produced amongst the general population.

C_Kathes
C_Kathes
1 year ago
Reply to  MadCap

Sure, the company will pass along increased labor costs to its consumers — to the extent it can do so and remain competitive. Outside of a monopoly situation there’s a limit to how far prices can be pushed, which means that, yes, higher wages will have to mean either lower executive compensation or lower dividends for shareholders. I don’t see that as a bad thing and I don’t really understand why you do. Due to a variety of factors the playing field has tilted further and further in favor of corporations for 50 years now. It was inevitable that workers would eventually start trying to rebalance it — and it’s about time they did.

MadCap
MadCap
1 year ago
Reply to  C_Kathes

I don’t see that “higher wages will have to mean either lower executive compensation or lower dividends for shareholders” as a bad thing at all, I see it as an UNREALISTIC thing. Have you ever worked for a publicly traded company? They are about the bottom line, no CEO is going to altruistically cut executive compensation or lower dividends for shareholders to make their bottom tier workers paycheck/benefits higher…that’s just not going to “happen” and if you think that it is possible, well you are not living in reality. Sorry

C_Kathes
C_Kathes
1 year ago
Reply to  MadCap

Oh, it’ll “happen” if their workers collectively demand it and the company has no other choice (unless out of sheer spite they decide to close unionized stores and forgo all the profit those stores generate, which does sometimes happen with privately held firms but is hard to justify in a publicly traded company).

The idea that workers shouldn’t ever demand anything because the company will push back in some way is a recipe for further impoverishment, as large corporations are always pushing to squeeze more out of their workers. Without a union there’s very little standing in their way. Been there, lived it.

ddddan
ddddan
1 year ago
Reply to  Fairly Obvious

Where do you get the info that in King County, $35/hour is at the poverty level?

Fairly Obvious
Fairly Obvious
1 year ago
Reply to  ddddan

Where do you get the info that in King County, $35/hour is at the poverty level?

A simple internet search yields many results, including official results from King County and the Census Bureau.

kermit
kermit
1 year ago

I have a serious question. Why are activists (including Kshama) constantly complaining that Starbucks is guilty of “union busting,” when clearly some Starbucks workers are unionizing?

jonc
jonc
1 year ago
Reply to  kermit

Among other things, Starbucks has fired union organizers.